One option for the 45 is to give it a really high cost in time to equip. I have 120 minutes but a more reasonable might be 8 to 12h taking into account they have to take out the ASTOR and switch out the relevant parts along with rewiring etc.

I think that sounds good for simplicity sake rather than implementing some kind of logistics system driven around one type of weapon.

The more I think about the idea of the conventional 45 though, the more I like it, especially without the wire, its going to be a close range weapon that will pretty much be a "silver bullet" for Victor I encounters.

Let's not start the winning wave for no reason
 

I mean i don't even see the point of coming here to complain about the new features if you will still be able to do what has been done until now.
If the game is about simulating the captain role, then controlling the sub by instructions is certainly an addition since it is what a captain does in real life.
BTW, there was circumstances where i wanted to fine control the sub but way more circumstances where having to manually control the sub actually made me lost focus on my main duty as a Captain, which is take decision.

Some nuance is required, for sure, to prevent it from practically removing the Mk 37 from the game.

One option is, as Julhelm suggested, to increase the equipping time at port for the Mk 45. It's the easiest path from the implementation standpoint, since it works with already established mechanics.

But perhaps something more involved is required, and more gradual deployment in general. The campaign begins with a sudden Soviet invasion, which means the Mk 45 would not really be available right off the bat. I'd say it'd start trickling down the logistics chain after a few weeks, available in very limited numbers at first but eventually becoming more common.

Of course, that requires some development, sort of similar to Silent Hunter's tech progression. As a system, it'd have Cold Waters veer from strict historicity, perhaps, but if the US were fighting a major war with USSR, probably both sides would redouble their efforts to bridge the gaps in their performance. It really can't be assumed technological progress would've run its historical peacetime course.

Towed array displayed in 3d and control to deploy/retrieve... This sounds cool. But also need to make sure game gives you a good reason to retrieve it sometimes.

You need to retrieve it before any high speed run or you can tear it off. So you would usually retract it before you start an engagement in case you haveto evade counterfire.

Or when you dive so deep that you almost touch the ground.

I'm wondering if there will be any of the non-retractable "point arrays" simulated, as far as I know, everything that came before TB-16 (namely BQR-15 and 25) had to be clipped on by a tug or tender when heading out to sea and clipped off when entering port.

While the constant speed restrictions may be untenable for game-play, it would give you a choice in terms of "Is it worth having the Towed Array or do I want to be fast?"

Shallow water OPS? Seems I am always in shallow water. Letting the towed array drag seems not a good thing.

I don't have a quote handy but I did catch a post stating that the game will still retain the option for players to manually drive their boats.

Yeah. It's been said several times so far that the new navigation options will coexist with the manual ones. So it's a win-win.

Well that was pretty smart of them! Good on ya KF. :Kaleun_Cheers:

This is incorrect. All TAs are capable of remaining deployed at all ship speeds... for exactly the reason you state concerning torpedo evasion. The process for retrieving takes about 10 to 15 minutes from fully deployed to fully stowed. Now, you will be functionally deaf at high speeds, and the newer thin-line systems don't like staying out at high speeds for extended periods of time, but they will NOT tear off.

This, however, is a truism. TA on ground = BAD.

Incorrect. As an example, the SPALT-9080 (BQQ-9) TA system originally used on OHIOs were not clip-ons. Not in the way you suggest, anyhow. It did require that we surface, send a team topside to make the physical and electrical connection, then dive the ship again (STUPID DESIGN!), but it did not require a tug or tender... just time, guts, and hopefully smooth seas. The array was still stowed in the ship's superstructure, and once connected was deployed just like the TB-16 or -23.

I'll one-up you there - it doesn't SEEM to not be a good thing... it IS not a good thing. Is very bad to drag ADM Uptisquats Towed Array.... is VERY bad.

Hm, trying to remember where I got that from. I remember reading that's how the older British 2046 TA worked, and that they got the design from the Americans but the method wasn't well liked because of the limits it introduced. I understand that shark-bites were also a problem.

Aside from possibly losing it on the bottom, I imagine it would probably be important WHERE it was lost, I can't imagine anybody being too thrilled with a gift like that being left off Murmansk ect. At the same time, I do recall HMS Conqueror being reportedly involved in a secret op to steal a Soviet TA with a "cow-catcher" type assembly added to the bow of the boat, I could easily see the Soviets trying to do the same thing (I think they did that to a frigate at some point if I'm not mistaken).

One thing I would propose though, because I think it would make for a great addition to the game, at the initial "contact encounter" screen before the battle starts (where you can choose to close range and what not) I think that it would be good if we could pick the state of the TA here (streamed or stowed) as well as being told about the depth under the keel to help you make your decision.

US Submarines since 1945 states that the reason the USN went for the retractable design was experience with the clip-ons getting damaged by extended high-speed runs (such as transiting the Pacific) and particularily shark bites.